And once again, you refuse to give an example of fine art that is in line with your understanding of it. That's because even you, yourself, likely realize how bogus it is. I thought I had made clear that I think Weston's pepper is an example of fine art. So, goose but still no gander! I retract. You said "quite a lot." Sorry for being inaccurate. That's what I was doing. I agree, and didn't say otherwise. I think it does, actually. "Better," maybe not. But different. People who take paint to canvas, whether successful or not, at least are giving it a try and opening themselves up to the opinions on their work of any Tom, Dick, Harry, Arthur, or QG who wants to give an opinion, even generalized opinions on "quite a lot" of stuff. I've come across artists whose work I don't like and whose statements about their art seem silly, but I don't let those few influence what I think about "quite a lot" of art. I don't actually care much about "quite a lot" of art. I care about the art that moves me and the art I make. Arguments about people declaring themselves artists may be good fodder for Internet chatter but they are the intellectual equivalents of paintings of genitals being shocking or novel. In other words, they get us nowhere in deepening our understanding of art or fine art.